Re: [suse-security] striped binaries

older
RE: [suse-security] suse security...

Bill.Light＠kp.org

20 May 2002 20 May '02

22:31

Yeah - like I'm going to open the attachment. "Theo v. Werkhoven" 05/20/02 02:22 PM To: suse-security@suse.com cc: Subject: Re: [suse-security] striped binaries ------ Attachment(s) have been removed ------

Show replies by date

Theo v. Werkhoven

21 May 21 May

05:26

New subject: [suse-security] striped binaries

On Mon, 20 May 2002, Bill.Light@kp.org wrote:

...

Yeah - like I'm going to open the attachment.

Afaik there was no attachment to open in the first place. You'v been fooled by you're MUA most likely, the only thing 'special' was a pgp-signature, like I see in lost of other posts aswell. Have a look in the headers before you start shouting please. Theo -- Theo v. Werkhoven ICBM 52 8 24N , 4 32 40E. S.u.S.E 7.3 x86 Kernel 2.4.16-4GB See headers for PGP/GPG info.

Peter Nixon

07:37

New subject: [suse-security] striped binaries

On Tue, 21 May 2002 07:26:18 +0200 "Theo v. Werkhoven" wrote:

...

On Mon, 20 May 2002, Bill.Light@kp.org wrote:

...
Yeah - like I'm going to open the attachment.

Afaik there was no attachment to open in the first place. You'v been fooled by you're MUA most likely, the only thing 'special' was a pgp-signature, like I see in lost of other posts aswell. Have a look in the headers before you start shouting please.

Theo

No. Interestingly your first email came through as one mime part (application/pgp) attachment while your second email came through normally with 2. (text/plain & application/pgp-signature) Were you playing with your mutt setup at the time?? -- Viel Spaß Peter Nixon - nix@susesecurity.com SuSE Security FAQ Maintainer http://www.susesecurity.com/faq/ "If you think cryptography will solve the problem, then you don't understand cryptography and you don't understand your problem."

D. Lord

14:40

New subject: [suse-security] striped binaries

Hi @ all Thanks so far fo your advice. Ok, so I don't strip the kernel ;-) This ist although a test if my mail problem is solved ... cu D. Lord On Tue, May 21, 2002 at 10:37:53AM +0300, Peter Nixon wrote:

...

On Tue, 21 May 2002 07:26:18 +0200 "Theo v. Werkhoven" wrote:

...
On Mon, 20 May 2002, Bill.Light@kp.org wrote:

...
Yeah - like I'm going to open the attachment.

Afaik there was no attachment to open in the first place. You'v been fooled by you're MUA most likely, the only thing 'special' was a pgp-signature, like I see in lost of other posts aswell. Have a look in the headers before you start shouting please.

Theo

No. Interestingly your first email came through as one mime part (application/pgp) attachment while your second email came through normally with 2. (text/plain & application/pgp-signature)

Were you playing with your mutt setup at the time??

-- Viel Spaß

Peter Nixon - nix@susesecurity.com SuSE Security FAQ Maintainer http://www.susesecurity.com/faq/

"If you think cryptography will solve the problem, then you don't understand cryptography and you don't understand your problem."

-- To unsubscribe, e-mail: suse-security-unsubscribe@suse.com For additional commands, e-mail: suse-security-help@suse.com Security-related bug reports go to security@suse.de, not here

Theo v. Werkhoven

17:40

New subject: [suse-security] striped binaries

On Tue, 21 May 2002, Peter Nixon wrote:

...

On Tue, 21 May 2002 07:26:18 +0200 "Theo v. Werkhoven" wrote:

...
On Mon, 20 May 2002, Bill.Light@kp.org wrote:

...
Yeah - like I'm going to open the attachment.

Afaik there was no attachment to open in the first place. You'v been fooled by you're MUA most likely, the only thing 'special' was a pgp-signature, like I see in lost of other posts aswell. Have a look in the headers before you start shouting please.

Theo

No. Interestingly your first email came through as one mime part (application/pgp) attachment while your second email came through normally with 2. (text/plain & application/pgp-signature)

Were you playing with your mutt setup at the time??

I guess I was, yes. I just begun signing email, and I'm not really comfortable with all the GPG & Mutt options yet. In Mutt I didn't see my first reply (with create application/pgp messages "yes") as an attachment, it looked "normal" here. This second reply (with create application/pgp "no") did appear as 2 part message though. Sorry if I'v coused unwanted reactions, maybe someone could let me know which is the most accepted way to sign email with pgp/gpg. Thanks. Theo -- Theo v. Werkhoven ICBM 52 8 24N , 4 32 40E. S.u.S.E 7.3 x86 Kernel 2.4.16-4GB See headers for PGP/GPG info.

8023

Age (days ago)

8024

Last active (days ago)

List overview

Download

4 comments

4 participants

participants (4)

Bill.Light＠kp.org
D. Lord
Peter Nixon
Theo v. Werkhoven